It wasn’t exactly the French Riviera. But the beachside cafe did passable mezze. The waves lapped at the sand in that familiar holiday rhythm suggestive of sunscreen, ice-cream and novels. It was the Mediterranean, after all. Perhaps this is what they call a development opportunity, I idly mused to myself, sipping cold Coke. But the green Hamas flags fluttering at regular intervals down the beach told a different story.

This was, apparently, the land of terrorists – a word that remains so freighted with emotion that those labelled with it are deemed beyond human conversation. “We won’t talk to terrorists” is such a familiar political mantra that we tend to assume we know why we won’t. But things change. And they change through talking. I mean, if former IRA boss Martin McGuinness can take part in a toast to the Queen at Windsor Castle, then anything’s possible. Surely?

Dr Anat Kurz meets me in her office at the Institute for National Security Studies, a part of Tel Aviv University, where she is the director of research and an expert on Hamas and terrorism. It feels a plugged-in, official kind of place. Justice minister, Tzipi Livni, had popped round earlier that morning.

Dr Kurz pulls out a packet of thin white cigarettes and muses on the state of the Israel/Gaza conflict. We talk about talks. “Israel does not want to destroy Hamas,” she says to my surprise, “There’s a shift in the Israeli position.” Several years ago, Israel’s stated aim was to eradicate Hamas. “But now, Israel wants to leave Hamas enough capability because it is the most organised force in the Gaza Strip.” Yes, she feels great bitterness towards Hamas. She speaks of the hundreds of children that have died digging tunnels, while Hamas bigwigs have villas and swimming pools. But better the devil you know. “Look at the neighbourhood,” she says.

Whatever you think of Hamas, they are not as ideologically murderous as Islamic State (Isis). Hamas does not crucify the Christians of Gaza, for example. The word terrorist lumps all these groups together. But there is a difference between them that the emotions and the language of terrorism does not always allow. Indeed, Dr Kurz is reluctant to label Hamas as terrorists – she argues they are involved in a guerrilla war. And the lawless Egyptian Sinai, Israel’s back yard, could easily become the next battleground for Isis. There is worse than Hamas out there. So much worse.

Yes, the Hamas charter, drawn up in 1988, explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Yes, it is antisemitic. But nonetheless, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has claimed that the charter is “a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons”. And Hamas number two, Mousa Abu Marzouk (with a PhD from Louisiana Tech), has gone ever further and called it “defunct”: “The charter is not the Qur’an. It can be amended.” Maybe sincere, maybe not. But you don’t get the impression that Isis would say anything like this. Nor indeed that Isis would be interested in participating in any sort of democratic process – remember Hamas won elections in the Gaza Strip in 2006.

Whatever one thinks of the war in Gaza – no one knows how long the ceasefire will last – there can be no military solution for either side. It can only be achieved through talks. And talks that are genuinely intended to find political settlement. The demonisation of Hamas and indeed the demonisation of Israel does nothing to help these talks. The current war came about because of years of missed opportunities. And the label “terrorism” has regularly been used as an alibi not to talk. If there is to be any sort of peace, both sides have to think about each other differently. “Gaza could be Singapore,” says Dr Kurz, doing precisely that.